Chief 9/11 Architect Critical of Bin Laden!

[AGENDA21]

WASHINGTON — To hear Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed tell it, Osama bin Laden was a meddling boss whose indiscretion and poor judgment threatened to derail the terrorist attacks.

He also saddled Mohammed with at least four would-be hijackers who the ringleader thought were ill-equipped for the job. And he carelessly dropped hints about the imminent attacks, violating Mohammed's cardinal rule against discussing the suicide hijacking plot.

The repeated conflicts between the two Al Qaeda leaders emerged last week during the penalty phase of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the United States in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks. Jurors heard new details of the plot from the interrogation summaries of several captured Al Qaeda officials, including an extraordinary account of a series of interrogations of Mohammed.

Mohammed described Al Qaeda in a written statement for his U.S. interrogators as an almost mystically efficient corporation that operates in ways Americans would never understand.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ksm5apr05,0,1052343.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[shain from kane]

1. Such confusion. Who's #1 and who's #2? n/t

[Betsy Ross]

2. " meddling boss whose indiscretion and poor judgment .."

Sounds like *.

[Lori Price CLG]

3. 'Mohammed described Al Q... for his U.S. interrogators...'

read, 'Mohammed described Al CIAduh in a written statement for his U.S. bosses...'

Lori Price

[Thorandmjolnir]

4. Here is what I don't understand:

Mr. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's statements have been used for a lot of things. To implicate prisoners in Gitmo, to claim responsibility for 9-11. To finger the hijackers, to describe how al Queda did not trust Moussaui, and now this.

My question is this: Has anyone, outside of the the CIA, talked to him since his alleged capture? HAs anyone cross examined him to find out if he is telling the truth? Has anyone established that all his statements, which seems to fit very nicely into everything the Bush administration claims, have not been elicited under torture.

He is like the big oracle that says things, but no one can see him or talk to him.

How trust worthy is that?

"interrogation summaries" my ass! When, where, by whom, under what conditions, and any chance of cross?